UFO over Jerusalem: CONFIRMED HOAX

Originally posted by Fromabove
Do this study yourself and you will see what I mean.

Gladly. So, how does one do a study like this?

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


That was great. That was amazing and I laughed so hard at 7am over it. LOL. Thank you for making that video few probably watched yet with no experience and 10 minutes..

Hahha "Is that a Pledian warship?" 'Ohhh Mississippi happens all the time' "I'm another tourist with an accent this must be real. It boomed. Exclamation."

LOL.... I still want to believe it's real. Sigh. Thanks

Let me just introduce something that might be helpful.

I dont think even the skeptics will like what I will post, as it seems to unfair to everyone who want to actually have proof of extra terrestrial visitations. But here it is:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bccb6ccda72c.png[/atsimg]

I believe this discussion didn't even get past the Human Incompetence Barrier

Here's a smaller version for those who can't scroll:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6584306208da.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by laymanskeptic

Why can't an object be of 'unknown terrestrial origin?'
I'm sure most anomalies are.

Originally posted by time2fly
Before I state my case, let me introduce myself: I'm a developer of a digital image editor (CodedColor.com) in Germany, so I know a little bit about digital photography, but probably not enough about video editing and CGI.
I was almost convinced this whole thing is a hoax until I looked at video 4 zoomed and frame by frame. Let me sum up my understanding at this point:

* Video 1: Agreed, the (still?) image has been extended to the left and bottom in order to add pixels for a camera shake. I don't see pixels "sucked in" at the axis, like some of you demonstrated, but nevertheless - a mirror fake is a fake.
* Video 2: If video 1 is a fake, this implies video 2 is also a fake.
* Video 3: hahah… i guess I have to go to Mississippi to find out more
* Video 4: ok, this is where I disagree with many of you. Let me explain:

Obviously someone made video 3 in order to show off or provide food for debunkers. If this is the case, why could this not apply to video1/2 also? Why are the debunkers here so fast in discrediting the whole thing due to 3/4. Are some of them part of the plan? It makes me feel uneasy, like someone is trying to point me into a certain direction to ignore other evidence on the side, meaning the 4th video. Let me explain why I believe the 4th video should be analyzed scientifically:

1. There seem to be real cars driving all over the place. Look at it zoomed!

2. Lanterns on the bottom right are flickering, probably due to lens impurity and movement

3. Lens focus is sometimes lost for a second, and this includes the floating object. (I know this can be done by software)

4. The dome has a reflection, which coincides with the slowly moving object. Can also be faked, but not so easy.

5. The object seems to have "life" in it. It behaves something like a plasma gas cloud. Very hard to fake.

6. The double flash of the object produces very realistic light effects on parts of the city and some surrounding objects. IMO, this can NOT be explained by professional image editing only.

7. I don't agree with the interlaced/progressive theory of 2 overlayed images/films. The "interlace" effect (if it is one) comes from a fast camera movement, involving many pixels (city lights) in short time. The movement of object includes only a few pixels compared to the size of the image, and this can leave a completely different light path on the camera chip. This is where we need science, not amateur video knowledge.

8. The voices and spectator behavior sounds very realistic, even though I don't know what they are saying. Hard to dub or act.

9. Video 4 came in two parts. It seems the owner of the phone stopped the filming when exiting the car, and turned it on again after a minute of disbeliev, in order to film what he was already wondering about. This appears to be a realistic scenario. He missed the object hovering at high altitude, and turned on the camera again a little late, when the object was already close to the dome. Why would a hoxer go to the trouble of providing minutes of meaningless film in video 1, just to cut short in video 2, assuming they are really linked together. Voice analysis of the girl should prove this point.

10. I know this last point is highly subjective: The whole movie has a crispy "real" feel to it. I've seen many fake UFO movies - this one is either a masterpiece of some film academy graduates, or it is real (not automatically implying that we are talking about aliens here).

Now let me ask all experts in this forum: Could it not be that we are blinded by hoxes 1-3 purposely, or because of some show-offs, tag-alongs and/or computer creeps, and are dismissing video 4 much too soon because of some amateur theory? Finding 3 faked moves on youtube does not automatically make the 4rth one fake too, right? I'm no conspiracy fan, just using plain logic, but I believe there are plenty of good reasons to cover up an alien/military encounter in a highly explosive spiritual location. Please, all of you video experts out there, throw 1-3 in the bin, BUT use the same detailed analysis and effort on video 4, parts 1 & 2. Not having any witness accounts does suggest a fake, but before we - again - jump to conclusions, let's analyse what we have and not what we don't have.

What do you think of my questions?

I re-posted your whole explanation because I want to add one more thing. As they are parked and the one man is running up from behind the car, the object is seen hovering above the Temple Mount Dome. you can see it best at 3 min 19 sec into the video. Most hoaxers would not think to include something like that, would they? The other three are hoaxes, this one is not.

Here's the video, check it out.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Movhisattva
reply to post by laymanskeptic

 

Why can't an object be of 'unknown terrestrial origin?'
I'm sure most anomalies are.

Sure it can be, if we can't find any other alternative explanation that can sufficiently explain said anomalies without making new assumptions that we didn't make before using already know facts about our physical world.

reply to post by Fromabove

I re-posted your whole explanation because I want to add one more thing. As they are parked and the one man is running up from behind the car, the object is seen hovering above the Temple Mount Dome. you can see it best at 5 min 30 sec into the video. Most hoaxers would not think to include something like that, would they? The other three are hoaxes, this one is not.

Here's the video, check it out.

www.youtube.com...

Won't it mean that the object is actually hovering for MORE THAN 23 SECONDS? in conflict with the other vids?

Originally posted by Movhisattva
reply to post by laymanskeptic

 

Why can't an object be of 'unknown terrestrial origin?'
I'm sure most anomalies are.

Oh, I see what you mean... yeah it can be terrestrial while still be unknown.

But my assumption was we know everything we need to know about our earth. But sure, "unknown both terrestrial and extraterrestrial." is acceptable to me

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I re-posted your whole explanation because I want to add one more thing. As they are parked and the one man is running up from behind the car, the object is seen hovering above the Temple Mount Dome. you can see it best at 5 min 30 sec into the video. Most hoaxers would not think to include something like that, would they? The other three are hoaxes, this one is not.

Here's the video, check it out.

www.youtube.com...

Won't it mean that the object is actually hovering for MORE THAN 23 SECONDS? in conflict with the other vids?

Yes, and I was very frustrated by the other vids because they could easily be shown to be hoaxes. One was so bad that it actually made me angry that people want to do stuff like that. That was the one whee they say "Is that a UFO ? " But in the last video, the thing was first noticed by the man in the backseat who was disturbed because he has seen something that was not a plane in his opinion. The others laugh it off. When the one guy gets out to take a pee, the other guy runs up from behind the car to tell everyone what he's seeing over the temple mount. To anyone no paying attention, it was just another light in the city. As for people in the city, who knows who else saw it. But for these people, they saw it. This one is just so perfect that it would take a genius to figure out every little detail so fine, including the light reflection on the smallest of object etc. to get it right and leave nothing out.

When I look at a video, I try to look at where the attention is not being given, and that's usually where you get them.

Originally posted by time2fly


Let me explain why I believe the 4th video should be analyzed scientifically:


What do you think of my questions?

hi there time2fly

I provided a scientific analysis of the 4th video here that in my opinion is 100% bullet proof

www.abovetopsecret.com...

in summary, if a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe.

Originally posted by laymanskeptic
I've done lectures and workshops on these things too.

Those 8 specific frames I've pointed out, they shouldn't happen. It's an anomaly that can only be explained with tampering. No amount of fast camera movement and apparent object size can make it appear that way.

Can you please demonstrate, in temporal and spatial terms, image sensor, physical movement, physical size, and other bits of knowledge you can use, how these 8 specific frames appear to be the way they are?

Thanks. Welcome to ATS :-)

edit on 7-2-2011 by laymanskeptic because: (no reason given)

Thank you ;-) Please don't be offended by the word "amateur" and what I am saying now: I don't think you ever edited extraterrestrial anomalies - on top of that I think we both don't know enough about the pysical possibilities out there, especially if it could be of alien nature. I'm really no alien fan, and very sceptical of ANY explanation until I have scientific proof. Yours is a personal assumption, a very good one at best, but it's not "proof" in my understanding of the meaning. The object may have moved close to the speed of light, or at least may be capable of doing so. Do you have any experience in camera behavior with objects moving close to the speed of light? Have you filmed/edited objects made of unknown alien materials with unknown textures & reflective behavior? True, it's all about light interference with a man-made computer chip, but having experience in one field does not automatically extend to all other possible physical explanations. So please continue with clever image analysis, but be careful with early conclusions. Before I jump to any conclusion, I would like to have all the other observations/questions 1-10 answered, which I posted in my first reply, and all those from other sceptics. If the object was inserted by CGI - and I have no doubt this is possible - how do you account for all those other effects I described? It's ok to apply Occam's razor in our earthly physical realm, but in this case the simplest theory just may not be accurate enough. None of your (and my) knowledge may be good enough to explain this phenomenon, just like an Indian tribe may hear the voice from a radio and assume there is a man in the box, but would never conclude the existence of transmitted radio waves.

Originally posted by Movhisattva
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

What a strange argument. There's almost nothing identical in that picture.
Except it's taken from the same location. All lights are different.

I didn't follow the discussion here, so I'm not speaking out on the core of the discussion.
I just think your picture overlay is incorrect.

No...it is the same picture.

All three pictures are the same pictures used in the clips.

MM

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

Mask, although you did find a picture from the same angle of video 4 I actually think they did use video on video 4 and not a picture. But, that doesn't matter because it is still a hoax.

It got me thinking though... do you see how similar video 1, 2, and 4 are? They just happen to be from a high vantage point over looking the city. This all would have been more slightly believable if they had a view from the city streets maybe, instead of from these perfect popular high vantage points.

I completely respect you and think your investigation skills are superb. I assure those are the same pictures.

I have verified this myself.

Please, with an open mind, look closely yourself. They are all the same pics I have shown to you.

Please don't make me have to make a clip to prove this...

I will get to work on the clip right now.

But I assure you, without a doubt, they are all the same pics I have presented and no argument can successfully disprove this because they are 100% exact matches simply stretched and hit with a little warp.

MM

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Marsoups
Oh another thing, I don't know if I've missed it ( I don't want to read all 120 pages of people blablbalbalba'ing ), but why hasn't anyone mentioned the actual movement of the light in the 4'th video ?

That has to be about the dumbest comment I have seen so far in this thread... you haven't read the pages but you don't know if you missed it...and ask why no one has posted something?

no, this one was WORSE!

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I find it wierd that nobody from this thread has done a real investigation or talked to the witnesses. Everyone thinks just sitting at home on their computer is enough to figure it all out. NOPE aint that easy kids

reply to post by Mr Mask


The evidence you have provided for that is sketchy imo, you could go take another night time video there at any time with similar results. There are probably even more similar pictures taken of the same region as well..

I made an error in saying where to first see the UFO over the dome or the rock. I said it was at 5 min 30 sec, but that was the length of the video. I meant to say it was at 3 min and 30 sec into the video.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by pezza


Oh come on guys, I know this is a waste of a reply, but honestly the first 100 pages are all filled with diagnosis , chin stroking, a bit of bickering, bad theories and what else.. Come on, it's a forum!!! Some people don't have two or three hours to kill on the 'making of'.

Since you have read it all and have the know-how , I don't see it a blight on your time to briefly explain what was said. It's not like the first post in the thread has got all the meat in it.

Originally posted by pezza
hi there time2fly

I provided a scientific analysis of the 4th video here that in my opinion is 100% bullet proof

www.abovetopsecret.com...

in summary, if a burst of light high up in the sky, having the most direct line of site to the most amount of terrain in the image, and is also about 10x brighter then any light in the video, and that light does not reveal any new features in the underexposed regions of the image, you really need to question what the role of light is in our universe.

Very good analysis. So I looked at the video again, and

1. I do see clear reflections on distinct objects outside the realm of the burst. These are so good, that I truely see no tampering here. I may be fooled, but it's very elaborate work then. I will try to upload a side/side example later.

2. On top of that, remember that a sudden light burst (or camera flash) immediately changes the digital camera f-stop, similar to a contracting pupil, balancing out the exposure. Thus, the overall luminance in the picture stays the same, but the distribution changes: dark pixels at the edge, which - as you correctly stated - should appear lighter due to the light burst, are actually darkened due to an increase in the f-number. Remember that a camera always tries to even out the exposure. You can test this by slowly moving your video camera into the sun. So your explanation is very good, but I'm pretty sure the output of a video camera cannot be described by linear functions.

Originally posted by Marsoups
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

The evidence you have provided for that is sketchy imo, you could go take another night time video there at any time with similar results. There are probably even more similar pictures taken of the same region as well..

Video 3 was proven to be a false background using an image from the internet.

But that picture don't line up with the image because it was stretched and warped. Go ahead, check it out yourself. Image for video 3 is warped and easily seen in comparison to the real image that was already proven to be used.

Knowing that- look at the images I have presented, stretch them and warp them just like video 4's image.

The same exact technique was used in all videos.

I have matched clip fours image in photoshop to completely fit perfectly into the picture I have shown you.

Same with the picture used for clips one and two.

Now if clip 3's background has been proven to be a warped image from the internet (and it has), please take the time to apply the same level of thinking to the pictures I present to you.

On quick inspection you may be inclined to dismissing this due to the fact that some lights don't seem to match, or the scene is not the same in size and length. But knowing that clip three's background was "warped and altered in length" try thinking along those lines.

Soon you will find every detail perfectly placed to become those pictures, even noticing entire roads taking curves and turns that are plainly not in the original image nor the real Jerusalem.

If you think the picture is from a similar vantage point, ask yourself why everything matches up perfectly in most of the picture, yet the hills in the back, and all the roads in the front-left curve and bend in ways the original pic doesn't.

I'm telling you why...its warped.

Just like clip three's image is warped.

Just like clip one's image is stretched and warped.

It is 100% the same pics, it just takes time t match them and see the facts. Don't fail me in missing them.

MM

MM